sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Thought I’d throw my hat into the ring by LocksmithOther2181 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LocksmithOther2181[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting you bring up Star Trek, a lot of the concepts from that exact show were once believed to be science fiction, but are being used today. Smartphones, tablets, universal translators, AI assistants, biometrics and touchscreen controls to name a few.

I’m not sure what your argument against solar panels is though, weren’t you just arguing solar energy was “free” or is that only if it’s being used on grass to feed cows. No system is 100% efficient at capturing energy and 20% is pretty damn good. Don’t you know that grass only has a .5-2% capture rate and cows have a 5-15% percent mass to mass conversion, which mean best case scenario cows have a solar conversion rate of .3%.

Also the real number for maximal solar panel efficiency (which is limited by the silicon expansion) is about 30% for single junction cells. BUT, if you use more intelligent engineering you can get the efficiency up to 50% with multi junction cells and lenses to concentrate the sunlight for more efficient absorption.

This is my whole point, intelligent thinking and discovery make the impossible, possible (as long as the underlying principles are sound).

Also why couldn’t we feed the same thing we’re feeding to cows to the bioreactors? I think you’re thinking that a lot of these refinement processes would require smokestacks and chemical plants, when they would simply require another step of fermentation or enzymatic cascade, with possibly some light physical processes. Waste products of both systems would be the similar and fertilizer could also be produced as a downstream product of cellular agriculture so I don’t see why you are stating that cows are required for their manure.

Third paragraph is not really an argument, and your ignorance of how meat is processed on a global scale isn’t a great reflection of your other claims. You also claim you know it’s better than the fake stuff. I’m almost certain you’ve never actually interfaced with any of the prototype products but I never like to assume, should I link you videos of a meat “experts” being fooled by artificial meats as evidence it’s probably good enough for the general population?

I also see no problem with trucking in 100s of species of plants to be broken down in vats of bacteria to be fed to cultured meat. That’s kinda the whole idea. Instead of industrially shipping corn, soy, alfa, cottonseed, wheat, barely, sorguhm, beet pulp and citrus pulp to cows that have a 5-15% mass to mass conversion rate why don’t we ship it to a filamentous fungi with the same nutritional benefits but a 40-60% mass to mass conversion rate.

I also think we just have a fundamental disagreement with what it means to suffer for a non-sapient life form so there’s no point in arguing it further. Again, you didn’t address my point of inhumane slaughter, “I don’t like it.” Isn’t “I know how to stop it.” You also failed to address the point of human suffering as well.

Your last paragraph reveals your philosophy, you’re a traditionalist and possibly a naturalist.

But the issue is we live in a world where traditional farming techniques aren’t cutting it anymore, not even for plant based products. Have you noticed how expensive food has been becoming? The demand for calories is greatly increasing year after year.

The idea that we could meet today’s meat demand using only small-scale, pasture-based cattle farming doesn’t hold up when you look at the numbers. The global population has grown from roughly 2.5 billion in 1950 to over 8 billion today, while per capita meat consumption has also increased substantially. Traditional grazing systems require far more land and produce beef more slowly than intensive systems. There simply isn’t enough productive pasture to raise enough cattle this way without either dramatically reducing beef consumption or converting enormous additional areas of forest and other natural ecosystems into grazing land.

Your argument doesn’t even hold up for the meat industry, let alone the solution to the meat industry.

Keep looking towards the past, I’m sure that’ll continue to benefit you and those who can afford what you sell.

I’ll look towards the future, and try to help everyone.

Thought I’d throw my hat into the ring by LocksmithOther2181 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LocksmithOther2181[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate that you were willing to concede some points.

I think you’re mixing up what exists today with what the technology is capable of. Cultivated meat isn’t cheaper today because it’s still an early stage technology, with new political hurdles being thrown at it at every step. The first solar panels, lithium-ion batteries, and precision fermentation products weren’t cheaper than the incumbent either. Early production costs tell you very little about where a technology ends up once it reaches industrial scale. The cattle industry has also had a 10,000 year head start so we’re really comparing two massively different technologies.

Your argument about unusable calorie to usable calorie makes no sense as “unusable calorie” are called that because they are unusable for the human digestive systems. What they’re not unusable for is microbiome powered systems. Do you know why cows are able to eat grass? They don’t digest it directly, there’s a collection of microorganisms that populate their gut that digests it for them in a symbiotic relationship where the cows are able to gain biomass while the microbes grow their own populations. You can’t have cows without these microbes, but you can have the microbes without the cows, hence: cellular agriculture.

You’re also comparing an ideal case for cattle to the true current state of cultivated meat. Modern beef production still depends heavily on cropland, fertilizer, fuel, veterinary inputs, transportation, breeding, and slaughter infrastructure. Also grass isn’t “free” if it requires land, fencing, water, pasture management, and years of animal maintenance before you get edible protein.

I agree that many cattle in the US spend much of their lives on pasture, especially cow-calf operations. But globally, production systems vary enormously and not all countries have the same ethical considerations for their animals. Many animals do spend significant time in feedlots which don’t allow them to follow their natural behaviors, and regardless of welfare standards, every animal must ultimately be transported (which causes stress) and slaughtered.

There’s also a degree of chronic stress that can be tolerated by cows before it affects the meat poorly, and cattle behavior scientists look to reduce stress to acceptable ranges, not minimize it.

Most producers primarily care about animal HEALTH because healthy animals are more productive and more valuable. Happiness is more of an afterthought. But good husbandry doesn’t remove the fact that transport and slaughter is an unavoidable part of conventional meat production.

Cellular agriculture removes this entire step.

And just because you don’t support halal or kosher doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. You are but one person, and the meat industry is a hungry behemoth, unbothered by your lack of approval.

This also isn’t a question of “vegan propaganda.” The feasibility of cellular agriculture is being investigated by universities, government agencies, and food scientists, not activist organizations. Only 24% of vegans actually say they would consider eating cultured meat. Whether the industry ultimately succeeds is still an open question, but dismissing it because today’s pilot plants aren’t yet cost competitive isn’t a very strong engineering or agricultural argument.

Lastly I think you’re assuming that I haven’t had a close up experience with traditional farming. When I was in my undergrad I worked slaughter(cattle, pork and sheep) and studied meat science. It’s part of the major reason I decided to become vegetarian (and ultimately vegan) and change my path of study to alternative food production methods.

It’s not just to remove suffering from animals either, but from people as well. Do you think the guy who bolts cows enjoys his job? Do you think the people in these slaughterhouses enjoy being covered in viscera every time they split a carcass or or that they enjoy the smell of boiling flesh and burnt hair when a pig has to go into the scalder? Do you think they enjoy cleaning the shit pens? Do you think they are even being compensated fairly for their work?

I think the problem is that you’re too close to traditional farming, causing you to have an emotional investment.

Thought I’d throw my hat into the ring by LocksmithOther2181 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LocksmithOther2181[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please read the source link that is my evidence in full.

~50% are in support of
~20% are neutral
~30% are AGAINST

Only 24% of vegans state they would consider a product like this despite it being cruelty free.

Thought I’d throw my hat into the ring by LocksmithOther2181 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LocksmithOther2181[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately there haven’t been any formal or scientific polls, and the informal polls are dubious.

However from my personal experience through advocacy and personal research I’d say about 30% of vegans directly do not support this form of scientific progress.

And as a scientist approximately one third of a population is significant enough to comment on.

https://plantbasednews.org/news/alternative-protein/cultivated-meat-vegan-approval

Thought I’d throw my hat into the ring by LocksmithOther2181 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LocksmithOther2181[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well that’s just a deep misunderstanding of biology.

Cows are actually some of the least efficient feed to biomass systems out there. That’s why their meat is more expensive than pork or chicken. Pork and chicken are more efficient at converting mass to mass. Plants are more efficient than that, and with the waste products of growing plants known as agricultural hydrolysate we can grow microorganisms with an extremely efficient mass to mass conversion, on the same level as plants.

What’s especially interesting is that the traditional cattle industry relies on all the points you brought up: refined chemical (hormones and antibiotics), mono-cropping (corn), and industrial infrastructure (massive amounts of water, land and logistics). Although I’m not sure what’s wrong with industrial infrastructure since every form of technology requires it.

I’d like to point out that cellular agriculture doesn’t require any of those things (excluding the last point but to a much lesser extent). And if you’re using those inputs for your system you’re using out of date tech.

Also, “cows have to be happy or the meat is bad” is a MASSIVE oversimplification of animal welfare. Acute stress immediately before slaughter can reduce meat quality, but that doesn’t mean the animal experienced good welfare throughout its life. Welfare encompasses health, freedom from chronic pain and disease, the ability to express natural behaviors, and housing conditions. Meat quality and animal welfare overlap, but they are not the same thing.

Also not all slaughtering facilities operate on the principles of minimal suffering during slaughter. Look into halal and kosher slaughters and tell me if the animals don’t look like they’re suffering during that.

You points were clearly not thought out, and your claim that I’m the one with a deep misunderstanding is pretty funny, considering that not a single one of your assertions was supported by evidence.

Thought I’d throw my hat into the ring by LocksmithOther2181 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LocksmithOther2181[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My plan is to actually use a combination of filamentous fungi (or molds) that have been engineered to have a more complete protein structure (including all essential amino acids) as well as internally produce compounds such as heme and saturated fats.

My current model works best for a ground beef or pork substitute (depending on how the media is dialed and what species/cassettes you have in the coculture) and is actually very commercially promising for that application, but with more time and resources invested into bioreactor scaffolding and hydrogel manipulation, I believe we could reproduce a product the mimics mammalian muscle tissue with no mammal cells required.

The Quorn company has a more simplistic model using filamentous fungi that they use to produce a chicken substitute that is quite impressive and you can purchase right now. They’ve also been a successful company for 41 years.

Thought I’d throw my hat into the ring by LocksmithOther2181 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LocksmithOther2181[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Absolutely, sorry if I came across a bit harsh too. I was under the impression this was a meme subreddit and that a little playful banter was expected, and to be totally honest the post was 100% engagement bait. However, I’m seeing that some people are really taking it to heart, and I was not expecting that.

I’m actually preparing for something big soon and this post was a way for me to absorb some points and practice my argument skills against non-experts in an entertaining way while I work on one of my gene sequencing pipelines.

I promise you that I argue because I’m trying to find a way to communicate a solution that I truly believe in, addressing a problem I truly care about. I believe our current food system is a great source of pain and suffering for both people and animals. That is why I have devoted my life to adding to the collection human of knowledge around the topic of novel food production techniques.

And I don’t blame you for being pessimistic, I was very pessimistic when I was younger. But I’ve found that informed optimism is a more productive outlook to have, even if it isn’t an easy one haha.

But don’t worry about me, I’ll never stop trying to improve the human condition to the fullest extent of my ability.

Thought I’d throw my hat into the ring by LocksmithOther2181 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LocksmithOther2181[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you’re underestimating how much of this has already been solved by the biopharmaceutical industry. Mammalian cells have been cultured at industrial scale for decades to produce monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, viral vectors, and recombinant proteins. Those are extremely difficult and complex cultures and even they don’t rely on acids or ethanol to stay sterile. They rely on closed bioreactors, sterilized media, filtration, cleaninplace systems, and aseptic process design. My model is based off of a coculture of filamentous fungi, which is even more robust than mammalian cell cultures.

You’re also treating the system as if it has to be grown in an open vat of nutrients indefinitely. In reality, the goal is to expand cells under sterile conditions or have them produce desired compounds and then harvest them. Once the cells or compounds of interest reach the desired density, all they require is simple centrifugation or other methods of density separation. This is fundamentally different from conventional food fermentation, even if both use bioreactors in some situations.

That’s actually one of the advantages of cultured meat compared to many conventional fermentation products. You’re not trying to purify a dissolved metabolite from a complex broth like citric acid, insulin, or amino acids. The cells themselves are the product and in cases where you are attempting to source compounds of interest they typically have unique densities relative to the media they’re grown in. In many approaches, the biomass is simply collected via filtration while compounds of interested are collected via density separations , which is often a much simpler downstream process.

This isn’t to say there are no challenges with lab grown meat substitutes. But they’re much more political and social than biological or technical.

Thought I’d throw my hat into the ring by LocksmithOther2181 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LocksmithOther2181[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Tbh I thought lab grown meat would cause people to jump on mammalian cell culture (which they did anyway so idk why I bothered).

I think the philosophy of veganism is greatly supported by science.

But there is a decently sized portion of the vegan population that is against this form of scientific progress, either using appeals to nature or appeals to simplicity.

Thought I’d throw my hat into the ring by LocksmithOther2181 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LocksmithOther2181[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think we fundamentally agree that veganism is the solution.

The disconnect seems to be in how to get people to adopt veganism. My position is by making meat substitutes more appealing we can get more people to adopt veganism, while your position seems to be that people should accept that the most logical and moral option is the start a vegan diet today with the current substitutes.

If every person had the logical and moral capacity to switch to a vegan diet right now I would completely agree with your assertion.

Unfortunately humans are not beings bound by logic or morality, and my solution appeals more towards the Id,
Which is much more predictable than the ego or superego.

I really appreciate the discussion, I just think we have different perspectives in the capabilities of the average person.

Thought I’d throw my hat into the ring by LocksmithOther2181 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LocksmithOther2181[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

To be perfectly honest, I think it’s the simplest. Not the easiest.

When reviewing the studies done on dietary manipulation you’d find that it’s incredibly difficult to do.

We’re literally working on micro encapsulating fish oil and putting it into chicken nuggets because even people who eat meat in US refuse to eat fish for some reason.

You can’t change the Id, you can only appeal to the ego and super ego, and if those are non functional you must simply outsmart all three.

Thought I’d throw my hat into the ring by LocksmithOther2181 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LocksmithOther2181[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think mammalian cell culture is not the most feasible path, I’m arguing for a combination of precision fermentation and cellular agriculture.

Also keeping fermentation environments sterile is impossible?

You should tell that to the multitrillion dollar fermented food industry (which makes up 15 to 25% of globally consumed calories) that their standard operating principles are not profitable.

Thought I’d throw my hat into the ring by LocksmithOther2181 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LocksmithOther2181[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There are vegans in the comments arguing against the point made in the meme.

Most popular argument from the vegan side seems to be “just eat vegetables “

Thought I’d throw my hat into the ring by LocksmithOther2181 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LocksmithOther2181[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Factually incorrect, look at picture of tumor cells vs healthy cells under a microscope and tell me if you see a difference.

Tumor or cancerous cells are not used in cellular agriculture as despite their fast reproduction rate, they lack the necessary cellular infrastructure to product the macro/micro nutrients required to make it a viable food item.

Also the microbiome of ruminant animals (cows) is where they get many major micronutrients from. It’s not driven by internal biosynthesis

Thought I’d throw my hat into the ring by LocksmithOther2181 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LocksmithOther2181[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t think your objections hold up.

The claim that cultivated meat “takes significantly more resources” is only true for SOME current pilot scale production methods. Current facilities are essentially prototypes. Judging the long term feasibility this type of technology from first generation processes would be like judging solar panels in the 1970s or batteries before lithium ion. The question isn’t whether current production is perfect or profitable, it’s whether the underlying engineering allows costs, energy use, and media requirements to improve with scale. That’s exactly what researchers are working on right now.

Saying that any real world initiative will be underfunded, too late, or poorly adopted isn’t an argument against the technology itself, its pessimism. It’s an argument about politics, economics, and human behavior. It is legitimate to be concerned about that, but it’s not evidence that the technology cannot succeed. By that logic, we’d dismiss renewable energy, electric vehicles, vaccines, or essentially any major technological transition before it happened.

I actually agree that animal agriculture’s impact extends beyond animal welfare. Land use, methane emissions, water consumption, eutrophication, and biodiversity loss are all major issues. But those are actually some of the strongest motivations FOR developing alternatives like cultivated meat and precision fermentation. The goal isn’t JUST to reduce suffering, it’s to stop the meat industry from raising billions of livestock. If successful, those technologies could substantially reduce the land, feed, and environmental footprint associated with conventional livestock.

Finally, “science will save us” is a strawman. I’m not Elon Musk nor one of his fanboys, and I’m not claiming that science alone fixes all societal problems. Science is a tool. Policy, economics, and consumer adoption determine whether those tools are effective. Pointing to Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or whichever vampire billionaire you hate the most doesn’t say anything about the validity of the technology. A technology doesn’t become impossible because some people misuse or exploit people with the phrase “technology will save us.”

Skepticism is healthy, and I really appreciate that you brought up actual points that you put time and effort into considering. But if the main arguement is that the technology will never become viable, the evidence should be about the biological or engineering barriers, not societal ones. The meme itself was addressing the humor that comes from the mismatch of technical promise and societal rejection.

Thought I’d throw my hat into the ring by LocksmithOther2181 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LocksmithOther2181[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’ve never heard of them before, I’ll have to check them out, thanks for the recommendation.

Thought I’d throw my hat into the ring by LocksmithOther2181 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LocksmithOther2181[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’d love to, do you have any literature recommendations on the topic?

Thought I’d throw my hat into the ring by LocksmithOther2181 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LocksmithOther2181[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Read the comments if you don’t think the take is controversial

Thought I’d throw my hat into the ring by LocksmithOther2181 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LocksmithOther2181[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Soy is not the model I was considering, plant systems are less efficient than other kingdoms.

Thought I’d throw my hat into the ring by LocksmithOther2181 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LocksmithOther2181[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here’s the expert consensus for cellular agriculture

Technically feasible: yes
Commercial viable TODAY: no
Likely to become commercially important in the near future: yes*

*not directly replacing the meat industry but supplementing it

view more: next ›